Is low energy nuclear reaction technology a soon to be available and viable green energy alternative?

Signature

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Is low energy nuclear reaction technology a soon to be available and viable green energy alternative?

“soon” I think is being very optimistic.

From that article:

Not Necessarily a Vindication of “Cold Fusion”

Note that scientists do not yet understand the mode of action of how Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) works.

“Fusion” is the combining of two elements. Near the end of his life, Martin Fleishmann bemoaned that he ever called his process “cold fusion”, because he doesn’t believe that “fusion” is what is actually taking place, though the reaction is most likely a nuclear process. The general phenomenon has been replicated more than 17,000 times according to
Jed Rothwell, author of the industry bedrock website: http://lenr-canr.org/

Andrea Rossi’s technology has been called “cold fusion” by some, but from what I understand from one of the top scientists working with Andrea Rossi, Bill Donavan, fusion is not involved at all. It is all transmutation. The Hydrogen goes to Deuterium (non-radioactive) through a series of steps, liberating a huge amount of energy in the process, as the primary transmutation reaction. And the Nickel goes to Copper (non-radioactive) through a series of steps, as a low and infrequent secondary transmutation reaction.

That is why LENR, for Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, is a more suitable name for the class of technology this comes under. “Low Energy”, meaning that in contrast to the sun, where nuclear fusion reactions require tens of millions of degrees Celsius to take place, these reactions take place near room temperature. ...

That LENR site looks mighty impressive too, but facades can be deceiving… and, I’m certainly no physicist,
so I’ll go and make some more popcorn.

This has been mentioned a few times on another board I post at, where several of the members are engineers of one sort or another. Here’s what one of them had to say after looking over everything:

OK, I call complete bullshit. p + e → n (+ ν, I think you’ll need not to violate a few conservation laws) is a weak-force-mediated reaction; at the pressures and temperatures found in the Sun’s core, the expected frequency is about 10-6/nucleon-year. They’re not only claiming cold fusion, but fluffy neutron stars

Signature

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

Yeah, anyone who believes that LENR is possible, might also believe that it is possible to turn nickle into copper, or palladium into silver, or tungsten into gold and platinum.

I bet that if I had been born 100 years ago, I would have been among the naive gullibles who would have believed it would one day be possible for a man to go to the moon.

Signature

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

By combining a helium nucleus with the element neon, these very massive stars can produce the element magnesium plus a free neutron. Those neutrons, since they’re uncharged (and do not have to contend with the repulsive Coulomb force between atomic nuclei), can interact with a nickel nucleus, which can capture it.
<snip>
In other words, even the most massive stars, at the incredible pressures and temperatures found at their cores, cannot fuse nickel and hydrogen nuclei together. From the point of view of astrophysics, the claims of cold fusion do not hold up

And another article from the same source, more concentrating on the ‘extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence’ argument.

1. Allow a thorough examination of the reactants before the reaction takes place, and another of the products after the reaction, and show that nuclear transmutation has in fact taken place.
2. Start the device operating by whatever means you want, then disconnect all external power to it, and allow it to run, outputting energy for a sufficiently long time in a self-sustaining mode, until it’s put out a sufficient amount of energy to rule out any conventional (i.e., chemical) energy sources.
3. Place a gamma-ray detector around the device. Given the lack of shielding and the energies involved in nuclear reactions, gamma-rays should be copious and easy to detect.
4. Accurately monitor the power drawn from all sources to the device at all times, while also monitoring the energy output from the device at all times. If the total energy output is in sufficient excess to the total energy input to rule out any conventional (i.e., chemical) energy sources, that would also be sufficient.
<snip>
I’m done pretending that this is science, or that the “data” presented here is scientifically valid. If this were an undergraduate science experiment, I’d give the kids an F, and have them see me. There’s no valid information contained here, just the assumption of success, the reliance on supplied data, and ballpark estimates that appear to be supplied “from the manufacturer.”

This is not a valid way to do science at all. And this is certainly not even close to meeting the criteria required for extraordinary evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim.

Yeah, anyone who believes that LENR is possible, might also believe that it is possible to turn nickle into copper, or palladium into silver, or tungsten into gold and platinum.

Oh it’s possible.

So what’s the catch?

You need a hypernova to do it.

I’m not sure how one would go about testing your assertion that such transmutation can only be done by a hypernova. I imagine that producing a hypernova even once would be difficult. Thus there would be the problem of replication, as well.

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.